User talk:Bakemono

Hi. When you modified the Kouta Hirano page you didn't leave something in the edit summary field. As such, I had no idea that you were fixing an error. Our vandalism bot flagged it and I reverted because I didn't have any information on the contrary. It's a good idea to add to the summary each time :) Thanks! Tawker 18:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

So, yes, there is consensus for Kouta Hirano now. But did you get consensus for the ruby characters? WhisperToMe 02:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I heard ruby characters aren't even seen on the Japanese Wikipedia. I'm afraid that we will have to take out the ruby characters. WhisperToMe 02:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

AMA request

A malicious and extremely uncivil vandal, that's continually editing/vandalizing/posting anonymously under a changing IP address (usually starting with 84.44.*.*), has been purposefully removing factually sound information from the aforementioned Wiki-article -- I consider this vandalism; however, since I don't know whether Wikipedia specifically does or not, so as not to violate the Three-revert rule, I've been as careful as possible to not revert more than three times per day, despite it being counteraction against evident vandalism. I've tried amicably engaging said user/IP address numerous times regarding the dispute -- even after his initial post to me was nothing but insults (some I have, admittedly, returned in kind out of complete and utter frustration) -- to which attempts this person has never once responded with anything more than further insults and excuses as to why they won't address the issue at hand (please note User_talk: Stevekeiretsu). This back-and-forth has continually gotten nowhere, and has, in fact, become much worse -- the user's only grown increasingly hostile (to the point of actual threats against me). Moreover, in an apparent attempt to 'get me back,' he also went and blatantly vandalized two articles I'd had previous involvement with (namely, Cryptic Audio & Kouta Hirano). I ask you, please, for immediate involvement before this escalates any further (if that's possible).

I could elaborate on the entire issue and dispute surrounding this already factually flimsy article, but it would probably be easiest to simply read the discussion comments. The short and skinny of it, though, is this vandal/anonymous IP person is completely unwavering on his personal, unfounded definition of what he considers "Neurofunk." As User: Stevekeiretsu correctly stated in our discussion on his page, he's attempting to turn subjective opinion into objective fact. Conveniently, though, he doesn't feel the need to justify this unwavering subjective opinion with evidence in any way. Evidently, because he posts it, it's an automatic truism, and any attempt to add something other than what he wrote gets edited out (in page-long, non-summarized fashion, I might add) immediately. More or less, he's not only playing article-God, but also vandalizing the article by removing information that should definitely be included.

Truthfully, I (along with many others) feel this shouldn't be its own article, but a subcategory in the Techstep article -- since, effectively, that's what Neurofunk is: a subgenre of Techstep. However, that's another issue entirely. I'm just trying to be rid of this persistent vandal that continually edits out pertinent information.

In any event, I'll be ready and waiting for any help and/or solution you can give me. Thanks in advance!

-- Bakemono 13:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Bakemono, I'm Steve Caruso from the Association of Members' Advocates. I'm sorry to hear about your problem with vandalism. :-( I'm writing to inform you that we have recieved your request, and that we are currently in the process of finding you a suitable Advocate. You should be hearing from us soon. In the meantime, be sure to read through the AMA pages here at Wikipedia to get more aquainted with the process of Advocacy and what to expect. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 16:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved comment from uer page

please use our correct label history we got and delete your opinions about. we still release our music. all infos here www.myspace.com/protogenrecords atm. www.protogen-records.org —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Typecell (talk • contribs) 12:51, 3 August 2006.

Your VandalProof Application

Dear Bakemono,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that at this time you do not meet the minimum requirement of 250 edits to mainspace articles (see under main here). Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof. - Glen 14:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

my name is robert soares and im registered as KRIDIAN. im the sole writer of the neurofunk article while bakemono adds no creativity or valuable information but only reverts my writings back to my writings, claiming as his contributions, while adding distinctive techstep artists to neurofunk signature recordings which is wrong. basically, he is the only vandal of this article, he´s offensive on the discussion page while claiming that european artists where never capable of producing this so called style of dnb - he claims that neurofunk doesnt even exist - yet hes allowed to be a member of wikipedia. shame. so now im registered and im taking this whole thing to the administration.

ATTN: GLEN - i´ve been writing this article for the past 6 months OWN MY OWN unfortunately even though i asked the community for valuable contributions. i didnt register before because i didnt know that it was necessary. all i cared about was to write the article which was difficult since it required a lot of musical research. i got registered today - aug. 21 - in order to defend this article against VANDALISM - selfishness - by the likes of BAKEMONO who never did make a valuable contribution to wikipedia - not even enough editing to request VANDAL PROOF - but aims in destroying this article by:

1. taking me, the sole writer, out. 2. reverting the concept of an existing style of music - therefore destroying valuable information for readers - back to the original source concept (from where this style came from) for his very own personal reasons which makes wikipedia vulnarable to vandalism and writers lacking basic knowledge of the theme itself.

i registered and tried to mail you glen but somehow it didnt work. will try again but my mail address is: innerfunktion@yahoo.com - attn: robert soares.

otherwise, i went beyond 250 EDITS since im the sole writer of the neurofunk article so perhaps, im entitled to VP. but unfortunately, i didnt think it was necessary to register. i can also expose my proffesional background in record production which doesnt mean that im a qualified writer but i´ll do everything i can to protect the integrity of this article AGAINST the vandalism of a small time vandal and wiki editor.

thank you, kridian/robert soares